Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
CNNW 18
CNN 16
FOXNEWS 14
MSNBCW 14
MSNBC 12
CSPAN 5
KPIX (CBS) 4
WUSA (CBS) 3
KNTV (NBC) 2
WRC (NBC) 2
CSPAN2 1
KGO (ABC) 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 111
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 111 (some duplicates have been removed)
story. this is backlash on capitol hill. this is criticism of the u.n. ambassador susan rice. it is now heating up as she meets with more republicans and faces more questions. we're going to have a live report up next. [ male announcer ] where do you turn for legal matters? maybe you want to incorporate a business. or protect your family with a will or living trust. and you'd like the help of an attorney. at legalzoom a legal plan attorney is available in most states with every personalized document to answer questions. get started at legalzoom.com today. and now you're protected. i'm going to dream about that steak. i'm going to dream about that tiramisu. what a night, huh? but, um, can the test drive be over now? head back to the dealership? [ male announcer ] it's practically yours. but we still need your signature. volkswagen sign then drive is back. and it's never been easier to get a passat. that's the power of german engineering. get $0 down, $0 due at signing, $0 deposit, and $0 first month's payment on any new volkswagen. visit vwdealer.com today. part of a whole new line of ta
our power as far as susan rice is concerned. >> i don't trust her. and the reason i don't trust her is because i think she knew better, and if she didn't know better, she shouldn't be the voice of america. >> key republican senators are trying to block susan race from becoming secretary of state. ms. rice is currently the permanent representative to the united nations for the u.s. she has not yet been officially nominated for the state department job to replace hillary clinton who intends to resign probably. rice is rumored to be underactive and positive consideration. but republicans and some democrats have been angry with ms. rice for saying that the attack in benghazi that left four americans dead was spontaneous and not preplanned. >> what our assessment is as of the present is, in fact, it began spontaneously in benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy, sparked by this hateful video. we do not have information at present that leads to us conclude that this was prem
the politicization of a public statement that was put out by the entire intelligence committee, which susan rice on the 16th, who was asked to go before the people and use that statement, did. i have read every one of the five interviews she did that day. she was within the context of that statement. and for this, she has been pillaried for two months. i don't understand it. it has to stop. if it continues, it's going to set up once again a partisan divide in these -- the house and the senate, which congressman rogers and i have tried to overcome and have overcome with some success with respect to the intelligence committees. >> congressman rogers, to my understanding, talking to government officials, is that what susan rice said on "meet the press" five days after the attack and other programs as well, was very similar to what then director petraeus said privately on september 14, that there appeared to be a terrorist element to it but that it appeared first to be spontaneous but it became a terrorist attack, and that that was his belief. so were they not speaking basically in the same way? >>
session. i can give you my assessment based on questions, my investigation, that what susan rice did was use talking points, pulled out originally by the cia signed off by the intelligence community, those were requested by the house committee. the intelligence committee sign off of it. the key was there were unclassified talking points at an early stage. i do not think she should be pelerine for this. she did what i would have done or anybody else would have done that was going on a weekend show. you would have said what talking points can i use? you get an unclassified version. i just remember -- i just read it to the committee what i was going to tell you and questions asked. to be sure it did not violate our rules. this particularly is for people in public office because you are used to answering questions candidly to have to be restricted to what is unclassified. is very difficult for your >> did he talk about his resignation? >> [indiscernible] >> i think it is making a very divisive -- we have seen wrong intelligence before. it all surrounded our going into iraq. a lot of peop
to the united nations, susan rice came under fire from republican senators. senators john mccain and lindsey graham, back at it, trying to trump up the ambassador's role in the benghazi consulate attacks. they took their shots at ambassador rice this morning and the president hit back. >> senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> that's loyalty to a staff member. if looks could kill, the president's look would be a cruise missile. it was the most sustained anger, i think it will be the most sustained anger that we have seen and will see coming from this president in a display in a television news conference. now, there is no evidence the ambassador did anything wrong, regarding the benghazi attacks. president obama is not about to let a member of his administration get dragged th
. >> that leads us now to susan rice, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations who went on national television and said this attack in benghazi, libya, was probably because of this anti-muslim film. >> reporter: exactly. >> she had talking points, right? where did those talking points come from? did they come from petraeus and the cia, were they edited later by the white house, do we know? >> reporter: we don't know. you heard peter king was asked that specific question. according to him and some others, we still don't know exactly where the disconnect was, if you will, between what the intelligence community now says that they believed at the time and the talking points that ended up with susan rice that ended up on television that sunday afterwards. it still doesn't seem to be very clear. the reason why he is now the former cia director is because of the affair that david petraeus had. he resigned one week ago. the question is whether or not that would come up at all. he said it was addressed at the beginning and he regretted what happened and that they didn't really address it at all after
cain, who also never forgives, and president obama over susan rice. could it be mccain hasn't gotten over the 2008 election? we're sort of stacking up revenge here on the other side. i got nothing more to say about that. >>> plus spy fall, what we're learning about the affair that brought down the cia chief and perhaps derailed the promotion of the top general. and has been tabloid fodder now for almost a week. >>> and besides complaining about how president obama won re-election by giving away gifts to minorities and young voters, ever wonder what mitt romney has done -- actually been doing since the election? well, david letterman has an idea. >> today mitt romney drew a picture of the house of representatives chamber and gave a state of the union address in front of it. >> and the fourth new entitlement, obama care, we repeal that one. >> message from pretend president romney. >> got a few more of those sugar plums in the side shows. let me finish way book about when we hay hero for a president. this is "hardball," the place for politics. ave to eat it as pt of your heart healthy diet.
like yourself talk that this issue is much bigger than susan rice. let me drill down on one area here. because yesterday the cia acting director at 10:00 a.m. apparently blamed the fbi for changing the language and the guidance and the talking points. at 4:00 in the afternoon the cia acting director came back and said it was at cia after all. what explains that? >> this stuff is coming from the white house. they are hoping this will go away. i don't happen to be one of the senators she cares to talk about and maybe it's because while opposed to her from her position as ambassador of the united nations and nothing could change my mind on that. bill: based on that answer it appears you are willing to take that answer higher than susan rice with it comes to benghazi. >> this will go down as the biggest coverup in history. they all knew it. they are hoping to have it go beyond the election date which it did. but people are not going to forget it. the administration deliberately covered this and misrepresented what happened in benghazi threatened up in the both of four people. one of whom
the whole white house. take a listen. >> so when the president says that susan rice was giving out -- talking about the most updated and -- fully documented intelligence that the intelligence community had, that's not true. >> last night the message was that susan rice was disseminating incorrect intelligence and the president is wrong for defending her. now here is mr. king today after an intelligence briefing. >> did he seem concerned that things had been changed? was that surprising to you? >> he seemed to say at the time they didn't realize the full significance of that and that or an unclassified statement it was acceptable. again, it's still very vague. >> petraeus told king today that, quote, for an unclassified statement this was acceptable. again, it's still very vague. dana, to paraphrase the president, republicans got out in front of their own skis on this one, didn't they? >> yes. well, in congress they have a tradition of revising and extending their remarks and i think peter king -- what peter king just said was "never mind." >> what he said earlier, what do we do wit
-style hearings on the attack on the consulate in benghazi and if you nominate susan rice as secretary of state they will do everything they can to block the nomination. he says he simply doesn't trust her. >> i won't comment at this point on various nominations that i'll put forward to fill out my cabinet for the second term. those are things that are being discussed. but let me say specifically about susan rice. she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. as i said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator tbram and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she received, and besmir much her reputation is outrageous. and, you know, afte
. that doesn't gel too well together. >> two things came out. susan rice was given talking points and this is what we know and they sent her out on the five talk show. the question remains and james clapper yesterday couldn't answer it and acting cia director morell couldn't tell. who put those talking points and time line who said it is a video. is it state intele, or the white house? one of them has to come on. >> gretchen: maybe it was a fog of politics? >> you are putting the cia deputy in the political world. she got a unclassified briefing. why would the cia give the un ambassador who is representing the white house an unclassified briefing. >> gretchen: she is a spokes person for the united states of america and she has an unclassified briefing? i guess you could argue in the slimmest of margins that you wouldn't want to scare the american people and hide what was really going on and say it was another terrorist attack. >> there is one problem with the whole debate. the day before susan rice went on the talk shows, on the 14th. leon paneta secretary of defense with the defe
to sppd to the rumor that ambassador susan rice is being considered to replace hillary clinton as secretary of state. needless to say, he wasn't too fond of that suggestion, considering rice is the one who appeared on five sunday shows, blaming the benghazi attack on a youtube video. >> this is about the role she played around four dead americans when it seems to be that the story coming out of the administration and she is point person, is so disconnected to reality, i don't trust her. the reason i don't trust her is because i think she knew better. and if she didn't know better, f america. somebody has to start paying a price around this place. but i am dead set on making sure we don't promote anybody who was an essential player in the benghazi debacle. >> sean: it appears our president, mr. sensitive, took great offense to the critique. take a look at the very angry response. >> she made an appearance at the request of the white house, in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others w
that they didn't change anything that the intelligence report went to susan rice other than what you named the consulate or dip the maic facility. what do you make of that? >> well, what is the issue that has been raised as a result of that? i think we all know the intelligence community had created the talking points that did come out about the incident that occurred. the purpose is to make sure that any information or that they would give to the media would not be classified. i think that's how a lot of these issues with the talking points started and the issue that's been raised in the last couple of days has been the issue of having al qaeda taken out of the talking points and putting extremists in there. my answer to that is that the analysts who would have made those different changes and you have the intelligence committee that is analyzed and they give it to the administration or us. what happened in that situation is there are some who have said that by taking the word al qaeda out and putting extremist that changed the content. i don't see it that way. i think extremist covers a
points used by susan rice and in the classified talking points which had a completely different set of conclusions in terms of who did this, when they did it, how they did it. so i think we're left with more confusion, if, in fact, the article by eric schmidt in "the new york times" is correct it would indicate that these unclassified talking points had a specific purpose to deceive the american people, but more importantly to deceive al qaeda so that they could continue to monitor their communications. so i think there are still a lot of questions out there, and i'm not sure the last couple of days have clarified much. >> fascinating. let me turn to you nick, depending again when you talk to, there you have a top general saying it's gotten a lot muddier. it's just the danger when you have the need to keep stuff classified because you're going off to certain groups who may have done this and sending people off to ambassador rice to >> in some ways, mark is right it has gotten muddier. at the end of the day while it is clear that security is inadequate in benghazi and while it's clea
susan rice faces key republican critics concerned about her comments after the benghazi attack. >> the big question now -- what does all of this mean for her chances of possibly becoming the next secretary of state? it's wednesday, november 28th. >> announcer: from abc news, this is "world news now." >>> good wednesday morning, everyone. i'm paula faris. >> and i'm rob nelson. we'll get to the susan rice situation and, of course, the high-stakes meeting in just a moment. >>> but also this half hour, giving back. new orleans firefighters head to new york to help with sandy recovery, repaying the kindness shown by new york's bravest following katrina. those tragedies kind of bonding those cities. nice to see that for sure. use all the help they can get. >> paying it forward coming full circle. >>> a half billion dollars worth of dreams, powerball players are lining up and dreaming of living large. what you told us that you would really do with $500 million. i have to say we appreciate the honesty. >> that's for sure. >>> also, the last dance. "dancing with the stars" crowns an al
. >> believe me, i'm the first to say i love a good sex scandal, but only if susan rice was involved, they would get to the bottom of that. >> what we're getting are these bits and pieces, self-serving leaks from aids, and others, and they still don't know. it's a hard story to report but we haven't shown much strain either. >> there are two things that work. one is david petraeus does have a press codery and he now has people anorthern mussily defending him. >> or not so anonymously in the case only sof columnists. >> in the case of sum. so you have him over here. how many witnesses before congress get to come and go without a picture? i mean that's the kind of bipartisan cooperation that could help with the fiscal cliff. but the other thing about the women is that, you know, we're dealing with a party planner with diplomatic immunity, you know, who seems to have gotten all kinds of, you know, generals courting her in a certain way because she raises funds for them. but this is a largerer than life person to cover. so you go there because she's a character. >> by the way york were r
president obama defended u.n. ambassador susan rice who was criticized for her remarks immediately following this attack. she is reportedly in contention to succeed hillary clinton as our secretary of state, take a listen. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmurch her reputation is outrageous. jenna: senator john cornyn of texas what's elected to be the senate's minority whip, a bit of a promotion if you will. thanks to have you back on the program. >> thank you, jenna, good to be with you. jenna: your reaction on what the president had to say yesterday in. >> i thought it was an overreaction to say the least. congress has a constitutional responsibility under our system of checks and balances to consider any nominations to an executive branch position, like secretary of state. the president knows that. i us
economy. >> the president also making clear that he has susan rice's back. that's his ambassador, the embattled u.s. ambassador to the united nations. initially she said that that september 11th attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi began as a spontaneous protest against an anti-islam film. well, now two top-ranking republicans are vowing to block her nomination if, in fact, she is picked to be the next secretary of state. that had the president very anger. here's what he said. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> white house correspondent dan lothian is in washington, d.c., this morning. let's start first, dan, before we get to the ambassador, the embattled ambassador, let's start with taxes. >> well, yes. you know, republicans pushing back on the president yesterday, because they don't want to see taxes raised, even on wealthy americans, because they believe that that will stifle economic growth and will hit those people who are the job creators. at the same time, there does appear to be this willingness to
first testified and briefed capitol hill and apparently after ambassador susan rice made those comments. >> that's why it's so significant, it also came after ambassador rice's appearance on the sunday shows, where she is now being grilled by john mccain and others. i'm talking to him in a few minutes. so it's very significant i think what general petraeus believed at the time. it does beg a belief, really, why would ambassador rice go on national television, having had a briefing we believe from the cia, which turned out to be flawed if the director of the cia right away knew this was an al qaeda affiliated group? >> yeah, you know, it's washington, isn't it. i mean, you know, the theory, what petraeus is expected to talk about is he had his talking points. he got them declassified, approved to go out there in public. when ambassador rice started talking from her talking points, this included other information that wasn't exactly what the cia thought might be really going on. i think some members of capitol hill have brought it down to this point, was the obama administration incredibl
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 111 (some duplicates have been removed)